Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>

Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com> Thu, 11 August 2011 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E5621F8B0C for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3qVExTZhH3O for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail78.extendcp.co.uk (mail78.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.40.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663F021F8B08 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from client-82-26-175-170.pete.adsl.virginmedia.com ([82.26.175.170] helo=[192.168.1.80]) by mail78.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1QrQpf-0000qu-GV for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:41:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4E439622.3050709@gridmerge.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:43:14 +0100
From: Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
Organization: Gridmerge Ltd.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <DE69914A-2813-4044-AEA7-A716FE2157CE@tzi.org> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <EC44989C-2AEB-4D9E-975A-2950E88D86D8@cisco.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A99@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A99@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms040405050102050607060605"
X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:41:13 -0000

Unfortunately, when a term enters the vernacular, its meaning often gets 
misinterpreted (e.g. for 'ZigBee', read '802.15.4'; for '6lowpan stack', 
read 'some proprietary stack which uses 6lowpan-hc in there somewhere').

For that reason, I don't think we should get too hung up about what 
6lowpan is now considered to mean. In other words - let's publish.

Robert

On 11/08/2011 9:04 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hi Megan;
>
> I do 100% agree with Ralph here. I'd prefer that we make that change
> before publish. Apart from that, I'm perfectly happy with the text as it
> stands.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:15 PM
>> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Megan Ferguson; Carsten Bormann; 6lowpan;
> RFC
>> Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282
> <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-
>> 15.txt>
>>
>> Following up on Pascal's observation, I looked through the entire doc
> for
>> occurrences of "6lopwan".  In my opinion, all of those occurrences
> could be
>> replaced with "IEEE802.15.4-based network"; in some cases s/the
>> 6lowpan/an IEEE802.15.4-based network/   In either case, note the
> lower-
>> case "network".
>>
>> Not meaning to delay the publication process further, but I think we
> should
>> take a second to consider consistency...
>>
>> - Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM 8/9/11, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Megan
>>>
>>> I think that for consistency:
>>>
>>>    LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses
>> of
>>>    IPv6 in 6LoWPANs.  LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective for link-local
>>>
>>> Should also become
>>>
>>>    LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses
>> of
>>>    IPv6 in IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks. LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective
>>> for link-local
>>>
>>> Don't you think?
>>>
>>> Pascal
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Megan Ferguson [mailto:mferguson@amsl.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM
>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert
> (pthubert)
>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282
>>> <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-
>>>> 15.txt>
>>>>
>>>> Carsten, Pascal, and *ADs,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated the title as requested.
>>> Please
>>>> note that we have also updated the expansion of 6LoWPAN (in the
> text)
>>> to
>>>> match that in the title of RFC 4919.  Additionally, we have updated
>>> the short
>>>> title that appears in the running header of the document (this is
> best
>>>> reviewed in the text file below).  Please review and approve these
>>> updates
>>>> or let us know if a different approach in either of these
> additional
>>> updates
>>>> would be preferable.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-lastdiff.html
>>>>
>>>> The text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are viewable at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282.txt
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282.xml
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-diff.html
>>>>
>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to
> view
>>>> the most recent version of the document.  Please review the
> document
>>>> carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once the
>>>> document has been published as an RFC.
>>>>
>>>> Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or
>>> with
>>>> your approval of the document in its current form.
>>>>
>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6282
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> RFC Editor/mf
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, I have reread all the messages, and I'm now ready to declare a
>>> (rough)
>>>> consensus for
>>>>> 	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based
>>>> Networks
>>>>> (with an ever so slight edge for the -based, which is different
> from
>>> RFC
>>>> 4944, but "Datagrams" is different, too).
>>>>> While there were a number of voices for keeping 6LoWPAN in the
> title
>>> (as
>>>> in RFC 4919), there did not seem to be consensus for that.
>>>>> I apologize for holding up this RFC for so long for what is pretty
>>> much a
>>>> bikeshed color issue.
>>>>> And, yes, I'm slowly getting back to IETF work, and will try to
>>> start popping
>>>> the stack.
>>>>> Gruesse, Carsten
>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>